User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 7:51:26 PM EDT
Super Bad Ass?
I sure do "You know, it's an ugly business doing one's duty... but just occasionally it's a real pleasure." "Oh, we're not going to hold him. We're going to hang him" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 7:54:32 PM EDT
[#1]
I'd say 'heartless coward that deserved to be tortured to death' would be a more accurate description.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 7:55:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Naw. Just a little "over zealous".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 7:56:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: I'd say 'heartless coward that deserved to be tortured to death' would be a more accurate description. Yeah dude. I don't count shooting kids and wounded EPWs as a coolness modifier in my book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 7:57:36 PM EDT
[#4]
I really used to hate his character and then as I was watching it tonight I realized he was just doing what he thought was necessary even though his life back home would be over. He wanted to win and was willing to do everything possible to do so, I consider that admirable
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 7:58:14 PM EDT
[#5]
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:01:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:09:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country no... no I dont think so. If we were to round up an entire town into a church and burn it down with them in it every last member in the unit would be prosecuted... we get in deep shit if someone so much as perceives us as not following the rules of war that nobody else gives a shit about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:11:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I really used to hate his character and then as I was watching it tonight I realized he was just doing what he thought was necessary even though his life back home would be over. He wanted to win and was willing to do everything possible to do so, I consider that admirable +1. We all fight for similar reasons. Everything else is point of view, and who wins. There is something to be said for someone who pulls out all the stops and goes to the edge for what he believes in, regardless of if his reason is moral by our standards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:12:52 PM EDT
[#9]
The saving grace of that movie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:13:20 PM EDT
[#10]
There's a difference between hard core and fucking nuts. Sometimes it's a question of perspective (said as a guy who willingly runs into burning buildings), and sometimes it's pretty damn obvious. In this case? Psycho  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:14:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country no... no I dont think so. If we were to round up an entire town into a church and burn it down with them in it every last member in the unit would be prosecuted... we get in deep shit if someone so much as perceives us as not following the rules of war that nobody else gives a shit about. Yes that part was shitty and everyone wanted Jayne Cobb to man the fuck up and save them but what I am trying to say is WT knew this would bode bad for him but he did it anyway. He was going to sacrifice everything for victory which is what I admire. It sucks because it was against the side I would choose but I can see where he was coming from |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:15:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
The saving grace of that movie. Sarcasm or Serious? Isaacs is a great actor by the way |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:21:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
By that logic,we could say that those 11 September 2001 hijackers were indeed,holy warriors,and see it as a great sacrifice for the religion of Islam.
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country Doesn't sound so good,now does it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:22:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
By that logic,we could say that those 11 September 2001 hijackers were indeed,holy warriors,and see it as a great sacrifice for the religion of Islam.
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country Doesn't sound so good,now does it? Nah seems like an entirely different argument |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:24:05 PM EDT
[#15]
I see where you are coming from, but having a consistent moral backing here on arf will get you flamed. Most of the folks who say "hell, yeah, we should torch the mosques" will be appalled at your suggestion, as he was harming Americans, therefore changing everything.
 Me, well, I'd be sickened by the actions of those perpetrating war crimes today, just as I'm sickened by the actions of British forces during the revolution. IMHO, anyone who throws away their humanity to become a winner hasn't won anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:26:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country no... no I dont think so. If we were to round up an entire town into a church and burn it down with them in it every last member in the unit would be prosecuted... we get in deep shit if someone so much as perceives us as not following the rules of war that nobody else gives a shit about. Remember, though... We have folks on ARF who think that bombing an entire village to rubble is an acceptable conduct in the WOT... To that group, said character was just 'fighting to win' |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:27:10 PM EDT
[#17]
That's why I feel you need to watch it not so much as the American revolution but as a seperate conflict. We can all agree the British were demonized in that movie right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:29:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
That's why I feel you need to watch it not so much as the American revolution but as a seperate conflict. We can all agree the British were demonized in that movie right? No doubt. I admire your objectivity to the situation, and gasp, DaveA and I agree that the GWOT is not a war of annihilation. I think I can sleep soundly tonight. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:30:24 PM EDT
[#19]
LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:32:47 PM EDT
[#20]
The character is based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton. He was a British cavalry officer but didn't fight in the south until 1780. He was accused of killing prisoners after their surrender in what is known as the Waxhaw massacre. Although the British account is that some colonials continued to fire after the flag of surrender had been raised. He was considered a terrible villain by the colonials after that. The event helped to sway a lot of southerners who had up to then remained neutral or loyal to England. The truth of what really happened is still not really known.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:32:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. So what about the character mel gibson portrayed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:39:22 PM EDT
[#22]
He's a good actor. He made you really hate him.
I read an account of the filming that the extras and re-enactors really liked him because he was a gentleman and very friendly with the regular folks. IIRC he tried to get the German director to tone down some of his characters villainy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:39:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
I see where you are coming from, but having a consistent moral backing here on arf will get you flamed. Most of the folks who say "hell, yeah, we should torch the mosques" will be appalled at your suggestion, as he was harming Americans, therefore changing everything. Me, well, I'd be sickened by the actions of those perpetrating war crimes today, just as I'm sickened by the actions of British forces during the revolution. IMHO, anyone who throws away their humanity to become a winner hasn't won anything.Except the war. Tarvington was willing to do what was necessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:39:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:IMHO, anyone who throws away their humanity to become a winner hasn't won anything.
This guy gets it. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:43:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By that logic,we could say that those 11 September 2001 hijackers were indeed,holy warriors,and see it as a great sacrifice for the religion of Islam.
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country Doesn't sound so good,now does it? Nah seems like an entirely different argument Nope,not at all,you sure as hell don't win wars by terrorizing,torturing and indiscriminate killing of civilians. And as far as POWs are concerned,all the same applies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:43:59 PM EDT
[#26]
He was no coward, he fought like hell in the hand to hand. This is a common fallacy we're guilty of in the modern world. That if one fights on the side of wrong they're an imbecile, a coward, or both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:47:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
He was no coward, he fought like hell in the hand to hand. This is a common fallacy we're guilty of in the modern world. That if one fights on the side of wrong they're an imbecile, a coward, or both. He was a champion for his side. Sometimes the champion for the enemy is more deserving of respect than the weakest men on your side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:50:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By that logic,we could say that those 11 September 2001 hijackers were indeed,holy warriors,and see it as a great sacrifice for the religion of Islam.
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country Doesn't sound so good,now does it? Nah seems like an entirely different argument Nope,not at all,you sure as hell don't win wars by terrorizing,torturing and indiscriminate killing of civilians. And as far as POWs are concerned,all the same applies. When did he murder so many civilians as 9/11? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 8:52:45 PM EDT
[#29]
History is always written, and re-written by the winners.
Remember this when you pick a fight with your government. Have the resolve that you will kill every last man, woman, and child of them in order to win. Or do not pick up that first stone to throw in the first place and pray that "may your chains rest lightly upon ye". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:11:29 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By that logic,we could say that those 11 September 2001 hijackers were indeed,holy warriors,and see it as a great sacrifice for the religion of Islam.
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country Doesn't sound so good,now does it? Nah seems like an entirely different argument Nope,not at all,you sure as hell don't win wars by terrorizing,torturing and indiscriminate killing of civilians. And as far as POWs are concerned,all the same applies. When did he murder so many civilians as 9/11? soooo.. you have to hit a quota of innocents before it's bad? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:13:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit Are we talking about Gibson's character here? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:18:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit Are we talking about Gibson's character here? Honestly to me part of Gibson's character was the issues he had knowing he was not much different than his enemy, as seen through his constant signs of regret and deep thought at times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:43:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
I'd say 'heartless coward that deserved to be tortured to death' would be a more accurate description. I agree completely. The asshole killed kids and wounded etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:43:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit Are we talking about Gibson's character here? Honestly to me part of Gibson's character was the issues he had knowing he was not much different than his enemy, as seen through his constant signs of regret and deep thought at times. I completely agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:45:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit Are we talking about Gibson's character here? Honestly to me part of Gibson's character was the issues he had knowing he was not much different than his enemy, as seen through his constant signs of regret and deep thought at times. I completely agree. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:47:59 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I'd say 'heartless coward that deserved to be tortured to death' would be a more accurate description. QFT. My absolute favorite part of the movie is when that son of a bitch gets gutted. The only reason for this is because I was rooting for Martin the entire movie. 
However, doing what it takes to win is sometimes necessary. Unless you like losing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:49:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit Are we talking about Gibson's character here? Honestly to me part of Gibson's character was the issues he had knowing he was not much different than his enemy, as seen through his constant signs of regret and deep thought at times. I completely agree. I bet you thought I was going to say something along the lines of them not being the same for one reason or another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:49:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Evil is perspective.
Osama bin laden is a glorious hero, if you're a member of the taliban. A soldier who kill's an insurgent for his country is a hero. Somewhere, that insurgent's son doesn't see it quite the same way. That said, fuck osama, and I couldn't give a ratfuck's ass about the isurgent's kid, I'm making a point though, |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:50:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country no... no I dont think so. If we were to round up an entire town into a church and burn it down with them in it every last member in the unit would be prosecuted... we get in deep shit if someone so much as perceives us as not following the rules of war that nobody else gives a shit about. Remember, though... We have folks on ARF who think that bombing an entire village to rubble is an acceptable conduct in the WOT... To that group, said character was just 'fighting to win' Usually the same ones who bitch and moan about Sherman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:50:30 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
I really used to hate his character and then as I was watching it tonight I realized he was just doing what he thought was necessary even though his life back home would be over. He wanted to win and was willing to do everything possible to do so, I consider that admirable I hope you never find yourself in a leadership position. I don't want to know you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:50:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Super Bad Ass? I sure do "You know, it's an ugly business doing one's duty... but just occasionally it's a real pleasure." "Oh, we're not going to hold him. We're going to hang him" http://www.geocities.com/eventmovies/patriotisaacsgun.jpg Have you submitted your application to the civilian defense force yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:52:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd say 'heartless coward that deserved to be tortured to death' would be a more accurate description. Yeah dude. I don't count shooting kids and wounded EPWs as a coolness modifier in my book. This. The guy was a textbook example of a war criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 9:58:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Before this war is over, I'm going to kill you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 10:03:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd say 'heartless coward that deserved to be tortured to death' would be a more accurate description. Yeah dude. I don't count shooting kids and wounded EPWs as a coolness modifier in my book. Yeah........................I do, but only on the seriously negative scale. 10 out of 10 for sartorial comport, -10,000,000 for style. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 10:04:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
The character is based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton. He was a British cavalry officer but didn't fight in the south until 1780. He was accused of killing prisoners after their surrender in what is known as the Waxhaw massacre. Although the British account is that some colonials continued to fire after the flag of surrender had been raised. He was considered a terrible villain by the colonials after that. The event helped to sway a lot of southerners who had up to then remained neutral or loyal to England. The truth of what really happened is still not really known. +1 The Colonials coined the phrase,"Terleton's Quarter", when they intended to take no prisoners as they did at King's Mountain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 10:22:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the man was a coward who used ruthless and terroristic methods to reach his goals of destroying a military unit and crush a "rebellion". Even his own commanding officer regarded him with contempt. You could see it like that or you could see it as a great sacrifice for his country no... no I dont think so. If we were to round up an entire town into a church and burn it down with them in it every last member in the unit would be prosecuted... we get in deep shit if someone so much as perceives us as not following the rules of war that nobody else gives a shit about. Yes that part was shitty and everyone wanted Jayne Cobb to man the fuck up and save them but what I am trying to say is WT knew this would bode bad for him but he did it anyway. He was going to sacrifice everything for victory which is what I admire. It sucks because it was against the side I would choose but I can see where he was coming from I think the WT character was a monster who did nothing I could admire, but maybe I am just confused. I am not attacking you, I am just trying to understand. To me it is like admiring the "sacrifice" that Stalin, Emperor Hirohito and Hitler gave. Or excusing the Nazi's for the "final solution" the murder of millions of Jews, Polls, etc. You could say that Hitler gave his all, he commited suicide and took the German people with him. Or excusing the Soviet Army for the rape and torture of thousands of German's because they had to be victorious and get the revenge they craved over their enemy the Nazi's. You would have to then say that the Japanese gave their all for victory by torturing and slautering thousands of Chinese, Phillapino and Allies held as pow's. The Japanese kamikaze pilots gave their all too. And in our recent history we have those monsters who flew those airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, they sacrificed everything for victory {and for all of those virgins they would get in heaven}. I am sure that I will get jumped on for this, but I just cannot see your point. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 10:25:17 PM EDT
[#47]
we leveled whole cities or rather, countries, burned 100's of thousands alive, nuked 2 cities, and you have a problem with his humanity in his attempts to win a war? hypocritical much?
killing civilians purposefully to win a war is savage but... war isnt a gentleman's game... stop acting like it should be. europe has been peaceful for so long because ww2 was so brutal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 10:40:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
He did a helluva job in Bawk Down,would have been a much better James Bond.
He's a good actor. He made you really hate him. I read an account of the filming that the extras and re-enactors really liked him because he was a gentleman and very friendly with the regular folks. IIRC he tried to get the German director to tone down some of his characters villainy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 10:42:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: we leveled whole cities or rather, countries, burned 100's of thousands alive, nuked 2 cities, and you have a problem with his humanity in his attempts to win a war? hypocritical much? Bombing a city is destroying a target and any deaths are incidental?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2009 10:45:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
we leveled whole cities or rather, countries, burned 100's of thousands alive, nuked 2 cities, and you have a problem with his humanity in his attempts to win a war? hypocritical much? Bombing a city is destroying a target and any deaths are incidental?
C'mon. Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo was meant to serve one purpose and that was terrorize, demoralize and kill the civlian population. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
